The real reason the democrats don't want to do this is that they'd lose millions of dollars a year, which are now placed in a slush fund that they can use as they please...
obviously it wouldn't be that difficult. even if they mandated the money be placed in individual savings accounts or in treasuries, it would be better than the current system.
the thing is...mom says that SS was created to generate income for people who didn't generate any (or much) income themselves...as they get older.....
so...if the people who are contributing, take thier contributions elsewhere, and keep them all themselves, there won't be any money for those that didn't contribute.
<<Creating individual accounts in the social security system would lead to a massive increase in payments of financial fees to private financial management companies. Under Plan II of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS), the net present value of such payments would be $940 billion. These expenses amount to more than 25% of the existing deficit in social security over the same period. Rather than using the money to close the social security gap, the plan would transfer this money to private financial managers and mutual fund companies. If the government were to offset the cost of these fees by raising the retirement age, the age would need to rise by about 6 months – just to cover the administrative costs of the individual accounts, not even the accounts themselves.
The fees would be the largest windfall gain in American financial history. The $940 billion payment to financial companies would be an increase more than 8 times larger than the decrease in revenue from the 2000-2002 collapse of the bubble. The net present value (NPV) of the fees amounts to about one-quarter of the NPV of the revenue of the entire financial sector for the next 75 years.
For a worker at the average income level, the fees in privately managed accounts are likely to reduce the ultimate retirement value of their individual accounts by 20 percent for the intermediate case.>>
Pages
The real reason the democrats don't want to do this is that they'd lose millions of dollars a year, which are now placed in a slush fund that they can use as they please...
obviously it wouldn't be that difficult. even if they mandated the money be placed in individual savings accounts or in treasuries, it would be better than the current system.
<>
Boy oh boy do you have partisan blinders on.
In doing this, you harm the very program that the poorest depend on the most and also benefit from the most.
the thing is...mom says that SS was created to generate income for people who didn't generate any (or much) income themselves...as they get older.....
so...if the people who are contributing, take thier contributions elsewhere, and keep them all themselves, there won't be any money for those that didn't contribute.
-Kristen
What I am suggesting is that people be allowed, at a minimum, self-directed accounts.
Do you know what administration costs would be for that private investment compared to what is now for the SS system?
The average no-load mutual fund charges less than 1% of assets for administration and provides the IRA administration for free
<
Also, would it address this concern:
4.
Here is an excerpt about what I read on the fees:
<<Creating individual accounts in the social security system would lead to a massive increase in payments of financial fees to private financial management companies. Under Plan II of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS), the net present value of such payments would be $940 billion. These expenses amount to more than 25% of the existing deficit in social security over the same period. Rather than using the money to close the social security gap, the plan would transfer this money to private financial managers and mutual fund companies. If the government were to offset the cost of these fees by raising the retirement age, the age would need to rise by about 6 months – just to cover the administrative costs of the individual accounts, not even the accounts themselves.
The fees would be the largest windfall gain in American financial history. The $940 billion payment to financial companies would be an increase more than 8 times larger than the decrease in revenue from the 2000-2002 collapse of the bubble. The net present value (NPV) of the fees amounts to about one-quarter of the NPV of the revenue of the entire financial sector for the next 75 years.
For a worker at the average income level, the fees in privately managed accounts are likely to reduce the ultimate retirement value of their individual accounts by 20 percent for the intermediate case.>>
Pages